Posted by rednation58 on 7/4/2013 3:13:00 PM (view original):Ok first of all Mo Williams was an all star because of Lebron James... He's done nothing since. Even struggled to stay on other teams rosters(Clippers and now Utah). Really? Wally?? and Ben Wallace (old Ben at least come on man)??? I'll give you JJ Hickson but that's it. Shaq was finished by the time he came to Cleveland and Antwan Jamison?? no way. Delonte West was ok but again a head case. What has Boobie done since Lebron left as well? He had a few good games but how does that make you a very good role player? What has Sebastian Telfair ever done in the NBA other than be related to Marbury? I think he's ok but he's done nothing in the NBA worth speaking of. If any of the guys you named were solid role players at all they would have had success post Lebron and the only one on your list of names is JJ Hickson. Good role players can play on different rosters and still show they are good role players.

The 2007 roster is getting talked about because it's the team that made it to the championship. It's technically the most successful Cavs team ever.

Lulz, lebron made mo williams an all-star, I guess he's responsible for the sun rising every morning and stars returning nightly as well.

I'm not gonna debate how every players stats while they were on the Cavs between 2006 and 2010 compare to and/or impact their career stats. I can tell you're being (at least slightly) disingenuous because what does Delonte West being a head case have to do with him being a great role player in the NBA??? Besides, if we applied your style of player analysis to every nba roster then maybe only 3 or 4 teams might look like they have shot at winning 30 games next season.

Lebron absolutely had a major role in Mo becoming an all star. And technically the sun doesn't rise every morning nor the stars return anywhere so no he's not responsible for that (in the spirit of being sarcastic). I know you get my point however in saying Lebron had more to do with Mo becoming an all star than Mo did.

How do you explain Mo never coming close to reaching that level of play since Lebron's departure? And really... what does Delonte being a head case have to do with him being a great role player? A hell of a lot that's what. Delonte is not even in the league right now because of it. Granted he's a good player as I agreed with you previously, but he's not reliable/dependable because of his emotional issues and he's shown this in Dallas and in Boston. You don't think having a good head on your shoulders has an impact on being a good ball player? And you say I'm slightly disingenuous "LULz"... I think that's you actually believing the cavs organization built a great team around LeBron and then providing the cast of characters you did.

You don't have to debate these certain players' career stats vs. their time with Lebron because the proof is in the pudding. If you can actually call a player a "great" role player then they would continue to be so regardless of who they play with. Now you named some good players... some who were just past their prime when Cleveland signed them... and some who just haven't done a thing in the NBA. But if we applied your style of player analysis to every NBA roster it would probably be the most competitive league since its inception with guys like Delonte West being called a great role player. Leon Powe would probably be the 6th man of the year.

Public or private the guy would have been hated either way. It's lose - lose for Lebron - any decision resulting in him leaving Cleveland was lose-lose and you know this. A private matter involving free agency would have always become public and as long as an extention went unsigned - the public would have put 2 and 2 together. And with how Dan Gilbert acted after the fallout of the decision, I doubt anything would have been different had it played out a different way. Lebron just meant that much to Cleveland.

Much of what happens between players and organizations comes down to what kind of people the players are (and their agents) and what type of organization you play for... You have organizations like the spurs who show loyalty and in return they receive loyalty from their players. You have organizations like Orlando who players probably shouldn't trust to tell anything. I think Cleveland may be somewhere in the middle here so it's really situational.

Yeah- that's your opinion as someone who hates LeBron and it's biased. I'm sorry but $2million dollars raised is pretty good (no matter how it came) and yes the decision was a terrible move but that is one bright spot. I agree the decision was arrogant but who in this game who is a superstar isn't arrogant? Lebron is not the only one. These players are businesses of their own. Tim Duncan doesn't have sneakers to sell and is probably limited on endorsements as well but that's the path he chose. I personally can't hold anything against a player for trying to build their estates no matter how large or small. Yes the decision was terrible but I don't think it makes Lebron a terrible person.

Public or private the guy would have been hated either way. It's lose - lose for Lebron - any decision resulting in him leaving Cleveland was lose-lose and you know this. A private matter involving free agency would have always become public and as long as an extention went unsigned - the public would have put 2 and 2 together. And with how Dan Gilbert acted after the fallout of the decision, I doubt anything would have been different had it played out a different way. Lebron just meant that much to Cleveland.

Much of what happens between players and organizations comes down to what kind of people the players are (and their agents) and what type of organization you play for... You have organizations like the spurs who show loyalty and in return they receive loyalty from their players. You have organizations like Orlando who players probably shouldn't trust to tell anything. I think Cleveland may be somewhere in the middle here so it's really situational.

Yeah- that's your opinion as someone who hates LeBron and it's biased. I'm sorry but $2million dollars raised is pretty good (no matter how it came) and yes the decision was a terrible move but that is one bright spot. I agree the decision was arrogant but who in this game who is a superstar isn't arrogant? Lebron is not the only one. These players are businesses of their own. Tim Duncan doesn't have sneakers to sell and is probably limited on endorsements as well but that's the path he chose. I personally can't hold anything against a player for trying to build their estates no matter how large or small. Yes the decision was terrible but I don't think it makes Lebron a terrible person.

Just a question, but are you biased as someone who likes Lebron, or does bias only and always work the other direction - just curious.
Not making any comment on the larger point, just an that particular "argument"

Just a question, but are you biased as someone who likes Lebron, or does bias only and always work the other direction - just curious.
Not making any comment on the larger point, just an that particular "argument"

I'm a fan and I may be biased as well, but at the same time I'm not refuting what was negative - only asking that the "good" be acknowleged.

If it was private then only the people involved could hate him as they would be the only ones to know the discussion even took place.

This is not true as information is constantly leaked now that we have 24 hr media... maybe 9 or 10 years ago it wouldn't have been an issue but not today. And since this involved James there's no way it would stay private - that's my opinion but I don't think it stays private this day in age.

There are classy ways to leave a team in either a trade or free agency. It happens all the time, and there is no reason to think it couldn't have for LeBron. He just decided to be an *** and draw even more attention to himself than was ever necessary.

Again I agree the Decision was a bad move (really no debate about it) but at the same time a the players obligation is to fulfill their contract and he did that. If you want to hold Lebron responsible for leaving, you have to hold the Cavs responsible for running the organization badly. No extention? - then you have to consider trade value 1 or 2 years ahead of time at a minimum (this is what most people ignore - the Cavs allowed themselves to be blindsided by this by not shopping the guy ahead of time). I personally can't recall a legitimate star leaving a team and there not being some negative impact regardless of how classy you deem it.

Again, LeBron could have been traded or left as a free agent in a much classier way than he did.

As you stated previously Lebron was traded - as a free agent - That means he agreed to a sign and trade after everything that happened. I think that's pretty classy unless you know of any NBA regulation that required he sign and trade. Every free agent I've seen is free to sign with whomever they want with no obligation to the prior employer.

Sure, there are others, but he's the one we're discussing here - and "the decision" was one of the most arrogant things he could have done.

I agree with this but don't dismiss the others just because they aren't involved in this particular debate. My point here is that if it were anyone else but Lebron no one would probably give a ****. That means he's held to a higher standard than anyone else.

I can and I do personally hold something against people who make unwise choices just to make money or otherwise improve themselves at the expense of other people.

"Unwise choice" - How did he improve himself at the expense of others? Regardless of the way he leaves, Cleveland's economy takes a hit so you and plenty of others would hold something against him either way. Again it's lose-lose for Lebron.

He jumped ship from the Cavs to the Heat to pursue his own goal of a championship instead of working with the team he had to make it happen there. He crushed the hopes and dreams of Cavs fans, and not only that, but he did his best to make a public spectacle of it.

Yes he made a spectacle - But was he supposed to remain a Cav for his entire career? Does he not have a say in where he wants to play as a free agent? I honestly wouldn't want to end up like Barkley or Malone or Payton or any hall of fame player who left a team past their prime in hopes of some hardware. I think Payton got his but I mean is he not allowed to pursue that goal of a championship after working with a team for 7 years? I think the organization played as much a role in crushing fans hopes and dreams as Lebron may have by not building a great team around the guy. To be honest I wanted Lebron to stay in Cleveland when the drama was on, but I understand the move and hey, it payed off.

I don't hold LeBron responsible for leaving - I hold him responsible for leaving in the WAY he left AND for not trying harder to make things work with the team in the months and years leading up to that. Yes, the team's ownership and management is responsible too, but that doesn't excuse LeBron for what he did.

Yet I only read the hate of Lebron from you. Thanks for at least acknowledging this much though. I mean 7 years is a long time man. The guy left and was in the finals immediately after - that says a lot to me about what the organization didn't do in building the proper team.

People in Cleveland would give a **** no matter if LeBron played and left like he did or someone else did the same exact thing to them, so he's not held to any higher standard than anyone else. Those are the people I've been talking about in most of this thread.

Maybe so, but this was a national event and would have been with or without the "Decision" and EVERYONE had an opinion. Are you from Cleveland or a Cavs fan?

I don't think that's classy at all. I think it was a piece in his public relations puzzle that he used to try to get back some favor with the public, the same as including a fundraiser for the Boys and Girls Club in his self-promotion. It may have helped other people, but the move was designed to get him to look better and had no other purpose.

At least you admit it helpted others, that much I can accept. I also don't know of any team that would give up their first round picks for the forseable future as some public relations stunt. I really think it was a gesture made in good will after the fallout - but neither of us can really answer this. All I can say is it was done - and when free agents do this it's normally done to genuinely help the other team. But again... it's something that didn't have to be done - so it has to be somewhat classy.

The honorable thing to do is to try to win with the team you've got and convince management to make it better, not to jump ship and go somewhere else in pursuit of your own goals of a title. And yes, some players do this. Danny Ainge offered the retired Reggie Miller a chance to join the 2008 Celtics and ride the bench as they pursued (and eventually did win) a title. He never got a ring with the Pacers and would have had a great chance at (and would have actually won) a ring with the Celtics by playing scrub minutes as an old guy - but he turned it down because he actually has some honor and integrity. The cheap ring with the Celtics would have tarnished his career with one team and the legacy he had with them and that meant more to him - as it should have.

LeBron should have been the same way, but he has no honor and integrity. He selfishly dumped the team - the closest NBA team he'll get to a "hometown" team - to pursue his own goals elsewhere. He tarnished his reputation in Cleveland and the surrounding area - including his own hometown of Akron, where many Cavs fans live.

Judas Iscariot sold Jesus for 30 pieces of sliver, and LeBron sold out the Cavaliers for however many rings he gets in Miami. Both became traitors to their own people. At least Judas seemed to feel sorry for what he did.

Just today you said you didn't fault LeBron for leaving but for the way he left. At least get your story straight.

Also, this is just total bullshit.

But really, if you think raising several million dollars for a very good charity made the decision worse, you really are far too stupid to bother discussing anything with, which is hardly a revelation at this point.

Another wonderful line from dahs, backed up with...nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, wait, it's true because you say so. Same ole' standard non-argument from you.

If you can just state as "obvious fact" that anyone with basic economics knowledge should understand that the "negative publicity" associated with The Decision had a meaningful negative impact on the Cleveland economy, I can state as obvious fact that anyone with common sense should understand that an employee has no obligations to his employer beyond the term of his contract. Seeking the best opportunities for oneself doesn't make you a traitor, it makes you a rational human being. Unfortunately you have to BE a rational human being to understand that. But this reality is FAR more obvious and less in need of support than the claim that you have baselessly and repeatedly made, that anyone with your economics background should see that The Decision obviously and inherently harmed the Cleveland economy. Don't try to put a heavier burden of proof on me than you've put on yourself, please.

As far as The Decision and its charity implications being a PR stunt, you're going to have to explain to me how that makes it WORSE. It would still be a PR stunt without the charity. At least with the charity it's a PR stunt that does people good. Could LeBron afford $6 million out of pocket, as you continue to assert (ok, you said 2, but it was actually $2.5 to the BaGCA and over $3 million more to various other charities; see this article from the Plain Dealer)? Sure. But it's not quite the chump change you make it out to be. And the onus is not on him to do that. He took advantage of a situation that allowed him to give money to children in need, that just doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. Maybe if he robbed 3 banks to do it it would be a bad thing. But an hour and a quarter of shameless self promotion? VOLUNTARY shameless self promotion - nobody was forced to watch the special. Outweighs millions of dollars to charity? If you really believe that to be true you need to seriously re-evaluate your value system.

i dont know what is sadder... bistiza's irrational belief that he is god's gift to debate, or everyone else's irrational belief that logical arguments might actually sway bistiza in some way...

its hard to tell if bistiza is trolling or really just is that way. how someone can be so condescending and not see it is beyond me. and how someone can present such incredibly weak arguments and not see it is beyond me. but somehow, i feel like bistiza is genuinely trying to have a debate/discussion, not just stringing everybody along in a 29 page troll session (well, not intentionally, at least). i suppose truly, ignorance is bliss.

Posted by coach_billyg on 7/5/2013 4:18:00 PM (view original):i dont know what is sadder... bistiza's irrational belief that he is god's gift to debate, or everyone else's irrational belief that logical arguments might actually sway bistiza in some way...

its hard to tell if bistiza is trolling or really just is that way. how someone can be so condescending and not see it is beyond me. and how someone can present such incredibly weak arguments and not see it is beyond me. but somehow, i feel like bistiza is genuinely trying to have a debate/discussion, not just stringing everybody along in a 29 page troll session (well, not intentionally, at least). i suppose truly, ignorance is bliss.

Remember the 30+ page "Work Ethic" thread? Remember how he refused to budge on anything? I think this is how he really operates.

so to take this in a different direction... if this was a moderated forum, at what page would you expect a moderator to lock the thread? or would you expect it to go on unmolested (well, by the moderator, anyway)

Posted by coach_billyg on 7/5/2013 4:18:00 PM (view original):i dont know what is sadder... bistiza's irrational belief that he is god's gift to debate, or everyone else's irrational belief that logical arguments might actually sway bistiza in some way...

its hard to tell if bistiza is trolling or really just is that way. how someone can be so condescending and not see it is beyond me. and how someone can present such incredibly weak arguments and not see it is beyond me. but somehow, i feel like bistiza is genuinely trying to have a debate/discussion, not just stringing everybody along in a 29 page troll session (well, not intentionally, at least). i suppose truly, ignorance is bliss.

Remember the 30+ page "Work Ethic" thread? Remember how he refused to budge on anything? I think this is how he really operates.

yup, i remember the whole "i dont care that its as obvious as gravity TO YOU ALL that spoiled high school kids dont automatically put in 100% no matter what, i dont think that way, and you are all idiots because you didnt prove anything". unfortunately. hence, my comment...